Does anyone know who the current US ambassador is ?
I certainly don't.
We should not rule it out at this stage. It is both an opportunity and a threat.
The US ambassador to the UK? That's a Democrat fundraiser and activist called Barzun who bought his way into the job. wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Barzun
Our ambassador to them is a Blairite career EUphilic diplomat with a background in zoology.
This is a great chance to get shot of both of them.
Do we now need Trump's permission to get rid of our own ambassadors? Nothing stopping us getting rid of the current ambassador if we want to.
If Theresa May really wants to tell Trump to do one, she should sack the current ambassador and replace him with anyone but Farage
The PM has already responded to Trump’s tweet, saying the position is not vacant. No drama.
Does anyone know who the current US ambassador is ?
I certainly don't.
We should not rule it out at this stage. It is both an opportunity and a threat.
The US ambassador to the UK? That's a Democrat fundraiser and activist called Barzun who bought his way into the job. wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Barzun
Our ambassador to them is a Blairite career EUphilic diplomat with a background in zoology.
This is a great chance to get shot of both of them.
Do we now need Trump's permission to get rid of our own ambassadors? Nothing stopping us getting rid of the current ambassador if we want to.
If Theresa May really wants to tell Trump to do one, she should sack the current ambassador and replace him with anyone but Farage
We're all acting very British here, and Trump's acting all American. It may go down well in the USA. They still expect us to be stiff and follow form. They pride themselves on not doing that.
"That Farage guy gets things done," may well be Trump's meaning. "That's why we get on."
Don't mistake everything Trump does as the act of a buffoon.
Trump says extreme things, not expecting them to happen but to get the subject on the table. He wants us to sack our current ambassador and replace him with someone more to his liking. He'll get his way too, I reckon. Farage was just a gambling chip for Trump.
Paints Britain in a very weak light.
The British establishment is in a weak light.
They went all-in on a Clinton win and lost.
(Snip)
Evidence, please.
Do you really think that the British establishment wanted Trump to win ?
Possibly not. But that's a very different thing to what you said above.
So I guess the answer is no: you don't have any evidence.
'Possibly not'
I nominate you for understatement of the year.
Trump is a lose cannon who is playing his own game and wants to control the pieces on the board. He knows that the British establishment didn't want him to win so will seek to diminish its influence on USA-UK relations.
We all know that's the rough situation.
As I have to do some work now and don't wish to have a petty argument I'll wish you a good day.
Does anyone know who the current US ambassador is ?
I certainly don't.
We should not rule it out at this stage. It is both an opportunity and a threat.
The US ambassador to the UK? That's a Democrat fundraiser and activist called Barzun who bought his way into the job. wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Barzun
Our ambassador to them is a Blairite career EUphilic diplomat with a background in zoology.
This is a great chance to get shot of both of them.
Do we now need Trump's permission to get rid of our own ambassadors? Nothing stopping us getting rid of the current ambassador if we want to.
If Theresa May really wants to tell Trump to do one, she should sack the current ambassador and replace him with anyone but Farage
The PM has already responded to Trump’s tweet, saying the position is not vacant. No drama.
Drama until the incumbent ambassador's term of office expires, methinks. Be amusing to ask UKIP's solitary MP for his thoughts...
On the basis that Trump should always be taken seriously but not literally, what is he really saying?
Perhaps that Farage is a lightweight who's only good for sucking up to Trump. He'd never have said anything similar about Le Pen for example. It makes a mockery of the magazine cover with Trump, Putin and Farage when the latter is just the court eunuch.
I'm starting to understand how Trump spent so little to win the Presidency. Note that nowhere in this tweet does he say he wants Farage as ambassador. If he did, he could have done so in one sentence. Instead, we have 'Many people [but not necessarily me] would like to see Farage' coupled with Trump's own ego-stroking comment about a political ally that 'He would do a great job'. All it took was one completely contentless tweet- so contentless that Trump wouldn't even have to back down from it- and he's dominating the news cycles again, thanks to people speculating about the effects of a policy he didn't even announce.
The question that journalists and commentators should really be asking is whether Trump is trying to use this tweet to overshadow another less beneficial story that's just hit the news, or perhaps to prevent the news cycle dissecting an earlier story that has served its purpose. No wonder he showed so much contempt for them in the face-to-face meeting, if he can play them this easily.
I hope no one had money on the North Carolina governorship contest. Looks like the lose is trying shenanigans to end run round the result, and the NC legislature is apparebtly considering a court packing bill to get round the election of a liberal justice their supreme court. Bonkers.
I've just been reading about that; an absolutely astonishing story.
The North Carolina legislature seems to be among the most flagrantly partisan in the country.
It's a strange form of voter fraud that sees Trump and Senator Burr winning, and Mcrory losing.
The real question is would the EU delivering an enforced hard Brexit bring in the law of unintended consequences? Could a hard Brexit in fact encourage others to leave rather than stop them?
If it is a soft Brexit, others may look, shrug and say not worth the effort and pain to be in a place that is EU lite.
If it is a hard Brexit then any other leavers will find a willing party with the 5th largest economy in the world on the doorstep willing to make a quick trade deal. Other members may look and say, UK is there, they will be a friend, they have survived OK, so there is no fear in leaving.
Unintended consequences are often obvious if you look for them. I could see circumstances where an enforced hard Brexit would be fulfilling the criteria and thus result in speeding up the loss of other members from the EU.
That's an interesting idea. The question is which countries are likely to leave, and which countries they trade with.
But as we saw with the referendum, trade plays second fiddle to other, more tenuous factors such as sovereignty.
The EU's behaviour since the referendum has been stupid: they don't appear to be asking themselves *why* we voted the way we did: it's our fault and they're blamesless. If the EU breaks up it will not be due to Brexit: it will be due to the fact they're not listening to some genuine concerns.
In that, many Brexiters on here were right and I was wrong.
We're all acting very British here, and Trump's acting all American. It may go down well in the USA. They still expect us to be stiff and follow form. They pride themselves on not doing that.
"That Farage guy gets things done," may well be Trump's meaning. "That's why we get on."
Don't mistake everything Trump does as the act of a buffoon.
Trump says extreme things, not expecting them to happen but to get the subject on the table. He wants us to sack our current ambassador and replace him with someone more to his liking. He'll get his way too, I reckon. Farage was just a gambling chip for Trump.
Paints Britain in a very weak light.
The British establishment is in a weak light.
They went all-in on a Clinton win and lost.
(Snip)
Evidence, please.
Do you really think that the British establishment wanted Trump to win ?
Possibly not. But that's a very different thing to what you said above.
So I guess the answer is no: you don't have any evidence.
'Possibly not'
I nominate you for understatement of the year.
Trump is a lose cannon who is playing his own game and wants to control the pieces on the board. He knows that the British establishment didn't want him to win so will seek to diminish its influence on USA-UK relations.
We all know that's the rough situation.
As I have to do some work now and don't wish to have a petty argument I'll wish you a good day.
I'm starting to understand how Trump spent so little to win the Presidency. Note that nowhere in this tweet does he say he wants Farage as ambassador. If he did, he could have done so in one sentence. Instead, we have 'Many people [but not necessarily me] would like to see Farage' coupled with Trump's own ego-stroking comment about a political ally that 'He would do a great job'. All it took was one completely contentless tweet- so contentless that Trump wouldn't even have to back down from it- and he's dominating the news cycles again, thanks to people speculating about the effects of a policy he didn't even announce.
The question that journalists and commentators should really be asking is whether Trump is trying to use this tweet to overshadow another less beneficial story that's just hit the news, or perhaps to prevent the news cycle dissecting an earlier story that has served its purpose. No wonder he showed so much contempt for them in the face-to-face meeting, if he can play them this easily.
The real question is would the EU delivering an enforced hard Brexit bring in the law of unintended consequences? Could a hard Brexit in fact encourage others to leave rather than stop them?
If it is a soft Brexit, others may look, shrug and say not worth the effort and pain to be in a place that is EU lite.
If it is a hard Brexit then any other leavers will find a willing party with the 5th largest economy in the world on the doorstep willing to make a quick trade deal. Other members may look and say, UK is there, they will be a friend, they have survived OK, so there is no fear in leaving.
Unintended consequences are often obvious if you look for them. I could see circumstances where an enforced hard Brexit would be fulfilling the criteria and thus result in speeding up the loss of other members from the EU.
That's an interesting idea. The question is which countries are likely to leave, and which countries they trade with.
But as we saw with the referendum, trade plays second fiddle to other, more tenuous factors such as sovereignty.
The EU's behaviour since the referendum has been stupid: they don't appear to be asking themselves *why* we voted the way we did: it's our fault and they're blamesless. If the EU breaks up it will not be due to Brexit: it will be due to the fact they're not listening to some genuine concerns.
In that, many Brexiters on here were right and I was wrong.
In their eyes, there is nothing to be concerned about.
It doubt it poses much of a dilemma for May at all. Farage as US ambassador would just be a useful idiot as far as the yanks are concerned. He is nothing more than a temporary political ally for Trump. That's it. Why would we suspend all diplomatic norms in pursuit of a ceremonial alliance with a US president that is detested by a large majority of the UK population, which would alienate us from the Germany and the rest of the EU, who we need to do a deal with on Brexit? Putting a comic book protest figure who has no experience in diplomacy in probably the most important position in the diplomatic service? It would only work in the interests of one party, which is the US. Farage would be way out of his depth. We will always have interests to protect that are independent of the US. I'm not against some kind of role for Farage, particularly if he actually has to make decisions and be held to account. But this is the wrong role. You should know when you are being played. I'm bloody glad, all things considered, that Theresa May is PM, and not Andrea Leadsom.
On the basis that Trump should always be taken seriously but not literally, what is he really saying?
Perhaps that Farage is a lightweight who's only good for sucking up to Trump. He'd never have said anything similar about Le Pen for example. It makes a mockery of the magazine cover with Trump, Putin and Farage when the latter is just the court eunuch.
I hope no one had money on the North Carolina governorship contest. Looks like the lose is trying shenanigans to end run round the result, and the NC legislature is apparebtly considering a court packing bill to get round the election of a liberal justice their supreme court. Bonkers.
I've just been reading about that; an absolutely astonishing story.
The North Carolina legislature seems to be among the most flagrantly partisan in the country.
It's a strange form of voter fraud that sees Trump and Senator Burr winning, and Mcrory losing.
As is/was the NC supreme court. The SCOTUS has ruled the congressional boundaries as unfair yet the NC Supreme Court has twice upheld them.
Now that a liberal justice has been elected to the court tippinbthe balance the legislature is talking about adding 2 judges that will be picked by the outgoing governor.
This is tin pot third world country stuff. This is brother of the candidate deciding who wins the election stuff.
On topic, Mrs May is exactly the right person to deal with this. She'll do what she should do, which is to ignore the tweet, and silently plot revenge.
I'm starting to understand how Trump spent so little to win the Presidency. Note that nowhere in this tweet does he say he wants Farage as ambassador. If he did, he could have done so in one sentence. Instead, we have 'Many people [but not necessarily me] would like to see Farage' coupled with Trump's own ego-stroking comment about a political ally that 'He would do a great job'. All it took was one completely contentless tweet- so contentless that Trump wouldn't even have to back down from it- and he's dominating the news cycles again, thanks to people speculating about the effects of a policy he didn't even announce.
The question that journalists and commentators should really be asking is whether Trump is trying to use this tweet to overshadow another less beneficial story that's just hit the news, or perhaps to prevent the news cycle dissecting an earlier story that has served its purpose. No wonder he showed so much contempt for them in the face-to-face meeting, if he can play them this easily.
That's correct. However, it won't work forever.
How far will he push it all before even the GOP moves for impeachment? I give it two, maybe three years, as the issues with his business, family and POTUS all become hopelessly entangled. It seems he plans to use the office to further his business deals - yesterday he was lobbying a group of, iirc, Argentinians for a building permit.
I'm starting to understand how Trump spent so little to win the Presidency. Note that nowhere in this tweet does he say he wants Farage as ambassador. If he did, he could have done so in one sentence. Instead, we have 'Many people [but not necessarily me] would like to see Farage' coupled with Trump's own ego-stroking comment about a political ally that 'He would do a great job'. All it took was one completely contentless tweet- so contentless that Trump wouldn't even have to back down from it- and he's dominating the news cycles again, thanks to people speculating about the effects of a policy he didn't even announce.
The question that journalists and commentators should really be asking is whether Trump is trying to use this tweet to overshadow another less beneficial story that's just hit the news, or perhaps to prevent the news cycle dissecting an earlier story that has served its purpose. No wonder he showed so much contempt for them in the face-to-face meeting, if he can play them this easily.
That's correct. However, it won't work forever.
How far will he push it all before even the GOP moves for impeachment? I give it two, maybe three years, as the issues with his business, family and POTUS all become hopelessly entangled. It seems he plans to use the office to further his business deals - yesterday he was lobbying a group of, iirc, Argentinians for a building permit.
I hope no one had money on the North Carolina governorship contest. Looks like the lose is trying shenanigans to end run round the result, and the NC legislature is apparebtly considering a court packing bill to get round the election of a liberal justice their supreme court. Bonkers.
I've just been reading about that; an absolutely astonishing story.
The North Carolina legislature seems to be among the most flagrantly partisan in the country.
It's a strange form of voter fraud that sees Trump and Senator Burr winning, and Mcrory losing.
Are there instances of Democrats seeking to steal elections like this? Maybe it's the partisan filter... But it always seems to be the republicans trying this kind of thing/seeking to disenfranchise minorities etc... I saw a great analysis on how long you have to queue to vote broken down by race... Do the democrats not try things like closing rural polling stations?
Mr. Jessop, it's a bit like a certain brand of theist who, when incredulous at the idea of atheism and asked in return for proof/evidence for God's existence, reply "The proof is all around us!"
I hope no one had money on the North Carolina governorship contest. Looks like the lose is trying shenanigans to end run round the result, and the NC legislature is apparebtly considering a court packing bill to get round the election of a liberal justice their supreme court. Bonkers.
I've just been reading about that; an absolutely astonishing story.
The North Carolina legislature seems to be among the most flagrantly partisan in the country.
It's a strange form of voter fraud that sees Trump and Senator Burr winning, and Mcrory losing.
Politics in North Carolina are an affront to democracy. Truly grotesque. I could never be a Republican and have that happening in my name.
Mr. Jessop, it's a bit like a certain brand of theist who, when incredulous at the idea of atheism and asked in return for proof/evidence for God's existence, reply "The proof is all around us!"
Surely Trump is the clincher against intelligent design.
I'm starting to understand how Trump spent so little to win the Presidency. Note that nowhere in this tweet does he say he wants Farage as ambassador. If he did, he could have done so in one sentence. Instead, we have 'Many people [but not necessarily me] would like to see Farage' coupled with Trump's own ego-stroking comment about a political ally that 'He would do a great job'. All it took was one completely contentless tweet- so contentless that Trump wouldn't even have to back down from it- and he's dominating the news cycles again, thanks to people speculating about the effects of a policy he didn't even announce.
The question that journalists and commentators should really be asking is whether Trump is trying to use this tweet to overshadow another less beneficial story that's just hit the news, or perhaps to prevent the news cycle dissecting an earlier story that has served its purpose. No wonder he showed so much contempt for them in the face-to-face meeting, if he can play them this easily.
Apart from sticky, little, Alt Right gumdrops, to whom in the USA will the Farage tweet have much meaning? If he wants to distract US citizens from eg abandoning TPP surely he'd pick a more resonant subject?
We're all acting very British here, and Trump's acting all American. It may go down well in the USA. They still expect us to be stiff and follow form. They pride themselves on not doing that.
"That Farage guy gets things done," may well be Trump's meaning. "That's why we get on."
Don't mistake everything Trump does as the act of a buffoon.
Trump says extreme things, not expecting them to happen but to get the subject on the table. He wants us to sack our current ambassador and replace him with someone more to his liking. He'll get his way too, I reckon. Farage was just a gambling chip for Trump.
Paints Britain in a very weak light.
The British establishment is in a weak light.
They went all-in on a Clinton win and lost.
Its hardly surprising Trump wants a less hostile British ambassador.
What exactly has the British Ambassador done that could be considered as hostile? – Sir Kim Darroch was appointed as ambassador to the US on 20 Aug 2015, long before either Trump or Clinton were selected as party nominees and appears to have said very little about either. - Genuine question btw.
Nothing at all as far as I can see. He has been a proper diplomat. But it strikes me Trump considers anyone who is not fawning over him to be an enemy. Diplomacy is something that is utterly alien to him.
Mr. Jessop, it's a bit like a certain brand of theist who, when incredulous at the idea of atheism and asked in return for proof/evidence for God's existence, reply "The proof is all around us!"
Surely Trump is the clincher against intelligent design.
Peak Evolution has been reached. We are someway on the down slope....
It doubt it poses much of a dilemma for May at all. Farage as US ambassador would just be a useful idiot as far as the yanks are concerned. He is nothing more than a temporary political ally for Trump. That's it. Why would we suspend all diplomatic norms in pursuit of a ceremonial alliance with a US president that is detested by a large majority of the UK population, which would alienate us from the Germany and the rest of the EU, who we need to do a deal with on Brexit? Putting a comic book protest figure who has no experience in diplomacy in probably the most important position in the diplomatic service? It would only work in the interests of one party, which is the US. Farage would be way out of his depth. We will always have interests to protect that are independent of the US. I'm not against some kind of role for Farage, particularly if he actually has to make decisions and be held to account. But this is the wrong role. You should know when you are being played. I'm bloody glad, all things considered, that Theresa May is PM, and not Andrea Leadsom.
Yeh, good point, Loathsome would have had Nigel installed by lunchtime.
Mr. Jessop, it's a bit like a certain brand of theist who, when incredulous at the idea of atheism and asked in return for proof/evidence for God's existence, reply "The proof is all around us!"
Surely Trump is the clincher against intelligent design.
I'm starting to understand how Trump spent so little to win the Presidency. Note that nowhere in this tweet does he say he wants Farage as ambassador. If he did, he could have done so in one sentence. Instead, we have 'Many people [but not necessarily me] would like to see Farage' coupled with Trump's own ego-stroking comment about a political ally that 'He would do a great job'. All it took was one completely contentless tweet- so contentless that Trump wouldn't even have to back down from it- and he's dominating the news cycles again, thanks to people speculating about the effects of a policy he didn't even announce.
The question that journalists and commentators should really be asking is whether Trump is trying to use this tweet to overshadow another less beneficial story that's just hit the news, or perhaps to prevent the news cycle dissecting an earlier story that has served its purpose. No wonder he showed so much contempt for them in the face-to-face meeting, if he can play them this easily.
That's correct. However, it won't work forever.
Why not? The media have had sixteen months of him as a politician, and a lifetime as a self-publicist, and they don't seem to be any closer to getting to grips with him than they were on day 1. The problem is that Trump seems to understand how people work on a visceral level. He knows what they want from him, which in many cases is an opportunity to pour scorn, and he manages to deliver it in a way that doesn't seriously affect him.
Just look at all the commenters (professional and amateur, of course) running to opine about international diplomacy on the basis of 140 characters and no actual content. This is right up there with the time he leaked his own tapes to the Washington Post, or when he tricked CNN into airing 20 minutes of veteran's endorsements because they thought he was going to talk about birtherism.
I hope no one had money on the North Carolina governorship contest. Looks like the lose is trying shenanigans to end run round the result, and the NC legislature is apparebtly considering a court packing bill to get round the election of a liberal justice their supreme court. Bonkers.
I've just been reading about that; an absolutely astonishing story.
The North Carolina legislature seems to be among the most flagrantly partisan in the country.
It's a strange form of voter fraud that sees Trump and Senator Burr winning, and Mcrory losing.
Are there instances of Democrats seeking to steal elections like this? Maybe it's the partisan filter... But it always seems to be the republicans trying this kind of thing/seeking to disenfranchise minorities etc... I saw a great analysis on how long you have to queue to vote broken down by race... Do the democrats not try things like closing rural polling stations?
The Democrats gerrymander as enthusiastically as Republicans do. I don't know if they go in for other shenanigans currently (obviously they did in the days of Mayor Daley/Tammany Hall). I suppose that their Sanctuary Cities could be seen as the equivalent of Republican malpractice.
Mr. Mark, on a purely genetic basis, evolution's stopped simply because it's not a huge problem anymore to reach adulthood and have children.
Interestingly, ideas may have replaced genetics in altering the species, the problem being some ideas are bloody awful (one need only look at what's happening in the Middle East to see that).
The real question is would the EU delivering an enforced hard Brexit bring in the law of unintended consequences? Could a hard Brexit in fact encourage others to leave rather than stop them?
If it is a soft Brexit, others may look, shrug and say not worth the effort and pain to be in a place that is EU lite.
If it is a hard Brexit then any other leavers will find a willing party with the 5th largest economy in the world on the doorstep willing to make a quick trade deal. Other members may look and say, UK is there, they will be a friend, they have survived OK, so there is no fear in leaving.
Unintended consequences are often obvious if you look for them. I could see circumstances where an enforced hard Brexit would be fulfilling the criteria and thus result in speeding up the loss of other members from the EU.
That's an interesting idea. The question is which countries are likely to leave, and which countries they trade with.
But as we saw with the referendum, trade plays second fiddle to other, more tenuous factors such as sovereignty.
The EU's behaviour since the referendum has been stupid: they don't appear to be asking themselves *why* we voted the way we did: it's our fault and they're blamesless. If the EU breaks up it will not be due to Brexit: it will be due to the fact they're not listening to some genuine concerns.
In that, many Brexiters on here were right and I was wrong.
Actually, I thought Brexit might force the EU to take a good hard look at itself, and reform. So in that sense, I was wrong.
For anyone who wants the definitive understanding of evolution/creationism and a pant wetting belly laugh go to Youtube and look for 'South Park evolution'.
On topic, Mrs May is exactly the right person to deal with this. She'll do what she should do, which is to ignore the tweet, and silently plot revenge.
Mr. Jessop, it's a bit like a certain brand of theist who, when incredulous at the idea of atheism and asked in return for proof/evidence for God's existence, reply "The proof is all around us!"
Surely Trump is the clincher against intelligent design.
Peak Evolution has been reached. We are someway on the down slope....
I'm not so sure about that. If anything, we might be entering a time when evolution accelerates and *is* intelligently designed: genetic screening and modification, healthier lifestyles and other factors accelerating genetic change.
And if we ever get Musk's dream of a million-strong colony on Mars, we might see two differently evolving races from Homo Sapiens.
Mr. Mark, on a purely genetic basis, evolution's stopped simply because it's not a huge problem anymore to reach adulthood and have children.
Interestingly, ideas may have replaced genetics in altering the species, the problem being some ideas are bloody awful (one need only look at what's happening in the Middle East to see that).
I hope no one had money on the North Carolina governorship contest. Looks like the lose is trying shenanigans to end run round the result, and the NC legislature is apparebtly considering a court packing bill to get round the election of a liberal justice their supreme court. Bonkers.
I've just been reading about that; an absolutely astonishing story.
The North Carolina legislature seems to be among the most flagrantly partisan in the country.
It's a strange form of voter fraud that sees Trump and Senator Burr winning, and Mcrory losing.
Are there instances of Democrats seeking to steal elections like this? Maybe it's the partisan filter... But it always seems to be the republicans trying this kind of thing/seeking to disenfranchise minorities etc... I saw a great analysis on how long you have to queue to vote broken down by race... Do the democrats not try things like closing rural polling stations?
The Democrats gerrymander as enthusiastically as Republicans do. I don't know if they go in for other shenanigans currently (obviously they did in the days of Mayor Daley/Tammany Hall). I suppose that their Sanctuary Cities could be seen as the equivalent of Republican malpractice.
It could be though that certain states are dodgy and whoever is in charge there is going to gerrymander... It just happens that the republicans are in charge at present.
Mr. B, I'm not saying mutations don't occur, just that the old natural selection doesn't really apply any more. In the First World, living until adulthood and parenting children isn't difficult. I'm single, but if I chose I could become a sperm donor and end up with hundreds of kids.
Mr. Jessop, indeed, sub-species (at least) could emerge if/when we colonise other celestial bodies.
Designing people is... disturbing. A storyline not yet developed (too much else to do) I had for a sci-fi focused on the co-morbidity rate of high intelligence with psychological disorders.
Imagine if we could bump up the average IQ to what today would be considered 150. Great. Except that would probably have the impact of massively increasing the number of psychopaths too (if we assume IQ actually measures intelligence).
The genius of South Park: All right kids, it is now my job to teach you the theory of evolution. Oh boy! Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of BULLCRAP. But I've been told I have to teach it anyway. It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this: In the beginning we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands and it had buttsex with a squirrel or something and made this retard frog squirrel, and then that had a retard baby which was a monkey fish-frog And then this monkey fish-frog had buttsex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey and that made you! So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys havin' buttsex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations! You don't often get teaching as good as this in UK schools!
On topic, Mrs May is exactly the right person to deal with this. She'll do what she should do, which is to ignore the tweet, and silently plot revenge.
And what better revenge than to send Farage to Washington?
We're all acting very British here, and Trump's acting all American. It may go down well in the USA. They still expect us to be stiff and follow form. They pride themselves on not doing that.
"That Farage guy gets things done," may well be Trump's meaning. "That's why we get on."
Don't mistake everything Trump does as the act of a buffoon.
Trump says extreme things, not expecting them to happen but to get the subject on the table. He wants us to sack our current ambassador and replace him with someone more to his liking. He'll get his way too, I reckon. Farage was just a gambling chip for Trump.
Paints Britain in a very weak light.
The British establishment is in a weak light.
They went all-in on a Clinton win and lost.
Its hardly surprising Trump wants a less hostile British ambassador.
What exactly has the British Ambassador done that could be considered as hostile? – Sir Kim Darroch was appointed as ambassador to the US on 20 Aug 2015, long before either Trump or Clinton were selected as party nominees and appears to have said very little about either. - Genuine question btw.
Nothing at all as far as I can see. He has been a proper diplomat. But it strikes me Trump considers anyone who is not fawning over him to be an enemy. Diplomacy is something that is utterly alien to him.
Trumps view is that if someone is not losing, he is not winning.
Been thinking about Trump's way of doing things and I think it will all settle down soon enough. People will get used to the way Trump tries to set things up, ignore it and wait for the more sensible approach.
I hope no one had money on the North Carolina governorship contest. Looks like the lose is trying shenanigans to end run round the result, and the NC legislature is apparebtly considering a court packing bill to get round the election of a liberal justice their supreme court. Bonkers.
I've just been reading about that; an absolutely astonishing story.
The North Carolina legislature seems to be among the most flagrantly partisan in the country.
It's a strange form of voter fraud that sees Trump and Senator Burr winning, and Mcrory losing.
Are there instances of Democrats seeking to steal elections like this? Maybe it's the partisan filter... But it always seems to be the republicans trying this kind of thing/seeking to disenfranchise minorities etc... I saw a great analysis on how long you have to queue to vote broken down by race... Do the democrats not try things like closing rural polling stations?
The Democrats gerrymander as enthusiastically as Republicans do. I don't know if they go in for other shenanigans currently (obviously they did in the days of Mayor Daley/Tammany Hall). I suppose that their Sanctuary Cities could be seen as the equivalent of Republican malpractice.
It could be though that certain states are dodgy and whoever is in charge there is going to gerrymander... It just happens that the republicans are in charge at present.
At the moment, the Republican hold two thirds of State legislatures and Governorships, so they certainly have much more opportunity to do so.
Been thinking about Trump's way of doing things and I think it will all settle down soon enough. People will get used to the way Trump tries to set things up, ignore it and wait for the more sensible approach.
I hope no one had money on the North Carolina governorship contest. Looks like the lose is trying shenanigans to end run round the result, and the NC legislature is apparebtly considering a court packing bill to get round the election of a liberal justice their supreme court. Bonkers.
I've just been reading about that; an absolutely astonishing story.
The North Carolina legislature seems to be among the most flagrantly partisan in the country.
It's a strange form of voter fraud that sees Trump and Senator Burr winning, and Mcrory losing.
Are there instances of Democrats seeking to steal elections like this? Maybe it's the partisan filter... But it always seems to be the republicans trying this kind of thing/seeking to disenfranchise minorities etc... I saw a great analysis on how long you have to queue to vote broken down by race... Do the democrats not try things like closing rural polling stations?
The Democrats gerrymander as enthusiastically as Republicans do. I don't know if they go in for other shenanigans currently (obviously they did in the days of Mayor Daley/Tammany Hall). I suppose that their Sanctuary Cities could be seen as the equivalent of Republican malpractice.
It could be though that certain states are dodgy and whoever is in charge there is going to gerrymander... It just happens that the republicans are in charge at present.
At the moment, the Republican hold two thirds of State legislatures and Governorships, so they certainly have much more opportunity to do so.
Oddly though, even on fair boundaries, the Republicans would have held the House for 18 of the past 22 years, thanks to the disappearance of the Dixiecrats.
There is an article on Labour List regarding the potential deselection of Hilary Benn. Reading the comments it is clear that the splits in Labour are now so deep that I cannot see how they can be reconciled.
I hope no one had money on the North Carolina governorship contest. Looks like the lose is trying shenanigans to end run round the result, and the NC legislature is apparebtly considering a court packing bill to get round the election of a liberal justice their supreme court. Bonkers.
I've just been reading about that; an absolutely astonishing story.
The North Carolina legislature seems to be among the most flagrantly partisan in the country.
It's a strange form of voter fraud that sees Trump and Senator Burr winning, and Mcrory losing.
Are there instances of Democrats seeking to steal elections like this? Maybe it's the partisan filter... But it always seems to be the republicans trying this kind of thing/seeking to disenfranchise minorities etc... I saw a great analysis on how long you have to queue to vote broken down by race... Do the democrats not try things like closing rural polling stations?
The Democrats gerrymander as enthusiastically as Republicans do. I don't know if they go in for other shenanigans currently (obviously they did in the days of Mayor Daley/Tammany Hall). I suppose that their Sanctuary Cities could be seen as the equivalent of Republican malpractice.
It could be though that certain states are dodgy and whoever is in charge there is going to gerrymander... It just happens that the republicans are in charge at present.
At the moment, the Republican hold two thirds of State legislatures and Governorships, so they certainly have much more opportunity to do so.
Yes that's true. Still that table suggests that only in Illinois are the Dems gerrymandering... Whereas republicans are doing it in 8 states... so fair to conclude they are doing it at a much higher rate even gven the imbalance in opportunity.
Been thinking about Trump's way of doing things and I think it will all settle down soon enough. People will get used to the way Trump tries to set things up, ignore it and wait for the more sensible approach.
Decent borrowing figures this morning - borrowing £4.8 billion instead of £6 billion might be considered by some a sign of success.
The £1.2 billion "saved" could be spent on roads (or something similar).
Never mind, we'll still be £55-£60 billion in the hole this year and the national debt is up there at £1.78 trillion.
Context - it's all about context. I was harangued by an officer at a county council yesterday who was telling me about his authority's "black hole" and said "deep cuts " were coming. The amount of the "black hole" was barely 1% of the county's budget.
Decent borrowing figures this morning - borrowing £4.8 billion instead of £6 billion might be considered by some a sign of success.
The £1.2 billion "saved" could be spent on roads (or something similar).
Never mind, we'll still be £55-£60 billion in the hole this year and the national debt is up there at £1.78 trillion.
Context - it's all about context. I was harangued by an officer at a county council yesterday who was telling me about his authority's "black hole" and said "deep cuts " were coming. The amount of the "black hole" was barely 1% of the county's budget.
Hole - more like a puddle to be honest.
The ONS said October's better than expected performance was due to strong tax revenue. Overall tax income in October was the strongest since records began.
Bit different to that report in the FT the other day that claimed tax revenues were going to be shown to be well down.
@JosiasJessop No sound, but basically the Chinese gaining an initial upper hand with the USA winning once they're able to get all their global firepower into the South China sea ?
We're all acting very British here, and Trump's acting all American. It may go down well in the USA. They still expect us to be stiff and follow form. They pride themselves on not doing that.
"That Farage guy gets things done," may well be Trump's meaning. "That's why we get on."
Don't mistake everything Trump does as the act of a buffoon.
Trump says extreme things, not expecting them to happen but to get the subject on the table. He wants us to sack our current ambassador and replace him with someone more to his liking. He'll get his way too, I reckon. Farage was just a gambling chip for Trump.
Darroch won't be sacked. He'll be promoted. (Perhaps to be part of the Brexit team?)
I hope no one had money on the North Carolina governorship contest. Looks like the lose is trying shenanigans to end run round the result, and the NC legislature is apparebtly considering a court packing bill to get round the election of a liberal justice their supreme court. Bonkers.
I've just been reading about that; an absolutely astonishing story.
The North Carolina legislature seems to be among the most flagrantly partisan in the country.
It's a strange form of voter fraud that sees Trump and Senator Burr winning, and Mcrory losing.
Are there instances of Democrats seeking to steal elections like this? Maybe it's the partisan filter... But it always seems to be the republicans trying this kind of thing/seeking to disenfranchise minorities etc... I saw a great analysis on how long you have to queue to vote broken down by race... Do the democrats not try things like closing rural polling stations?
The Democrats gerrymander as enthusiastically as Republicans do. I don't know if they go in for other shenanigans currently (obviously they did in the days of Mayor Daley/Tammany Hall). I suppose that their Sanctuary Cities could be seen as the equivalent of Republican malpractice.
Although Democrats gerrymander, it's an exaggeration to say that they do so as enthusiastically as Republicans. States that have non-partisan boundary commissions tend to be Blue states, and all the signatories to the NPVIC are Blue states. What's more, the level of detail in the gerrymandering in some Red states is second to none.
Decent borrowing figures this morning - borrowing £4.8 billion instead of £6 billion might be considered by some a sign of success.
The £1.2 billion "saved" could be spent on roads (or something similar).
Never mind, we'll still be £55-£60 billion in the hole this year and the national debt is up there at £1.78 trillion.
Context - it's all about context. I was harangued by an officer at a county council yesterday who was telling me about his authority's "black hole" and said "deep cuts " were coming. The amount of the "black hole" was barely 1% of the county's budget.
Hole - more like a puddle to be honest.
The ONS said October's better than expected performance was due to strong tax revenue. Overall tax income in October was the strongest since records began.
Bit different to that report in the FT the other day that claimed tax revenues were going to be shown to be well down.
BBC:
'Despite the monthly improvement, on Wednesday the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, is expected to announce an extra £100bn of public borrowing for the next five years, compared with what was planned in March, largely because the economy is expected to grow less quickly than was thought.'
@JosiasJessop No sound, but basically the Chinese gaining an initial upper hand with the USA winning once they're able to get all their global firepower into the South China sea ?
Pretty much. It doesn't take into account the wider geopolitical or, more importantly, economic aspects. IMV if China are seen as being the aggressors and not victims, then expect their exports to be severely hit.
I'm starting to understand how Trump spent so little to win the Presidency. Note that nowhere in this tweet does he say he wants Farage as ambassador. If he did, he could have done so in one sentence. Instead, we have 'Many people [but not necessarily me] would like to see Farage' coupled with Trump's own ego-stroking comment about a political ally that 'He would do a great job'. All it took was one completely contentless tweet- so contentless that Trump wouldn't even have to back down from it- and he's dominating the news cycles again, thanks to people speculating about the effects of a policy he didn't even announce.
The question that journalists and commentators should really be asking is whether Trump is trying to use this tweet to overshadow another less beneficial story that's just hit the news, or perhaps to prevent the news cycle dissecting an earlier story that has served its purpose. No wonder he showed so much contempt for them in the face-to-face meeting, if he can play them this easily.
That's correct. However, it won't work forever.
Why not? The media have had sixteen months of him as a politician, and a lifetime as a self-publicist, and they don't seem to be any closer to getting to grips with him than they were on day 1. The problem is that Trump seems to understand how people work on a visceral level. He knows what they want from him, which in many cases is an opportunity to pour scorn, and he manages to deliver it in a way that doesn't seriously affect him.
Just look at all the commenters (professional and amateur, of course) running to opine about international diplomacy on the basis of 140 characters and no actual content. This is right up there with the time he leaked his own tapes to the Washington Post, or when he tricked CNN into airing 20 minutes of veteran's endorsements because they thought he was going to talk about birtherism.
People will start to think. "Trump says he wants Farage as UK ambassador to the US", so what does he really mean, oh yes he wants to get people talking about the UK ambassador and to indicate he doesn't like the current one. However, everybody now knows that's the way he operates and if we replace our ambassador it will look like weakness, in fact it will BE weakness, so we won't. Maybe May gets it already.
We're all acting very British here, and Trump's acting all American. It may go down well in the USA. They still expect us to be stiff and follow form. They pride themselves on not doing that.
"That Farage guy gets things done," may well be Trump's meaning. "That's why we get on."
Don't mistake everything Trump does as the act of a buffoon.
Trump says extreme things, not expecting them to happen but to get the subject on the table. He wants us to sack our current ambassador and replace him with someone more to his liking. He'll get his way too, I reckon. Farage was just a gambling chip for Trump.
Paints Britain in a very weak light.
The British establishment is in a weak light.
They went all-in on a Clinton win and lost.
Its hardly surprising Trump wants a less hostile British ambassador.
What exactly has the British Ambassador done that could be considered as hostile? – Sir Kim Darroch was appointed as ambassador to the US on 20 Aug 2015, long before either Trump or Clinton were selected as party nominees and appears to have said very little about either. - Genuine question btw.
Nothing at all as far as I can see. He has been a proper diplomat. But it strikes me Trump considers anyone who is not fawning over him to be an enemy. Diplomacy is something that is utterly alien to him.
Trumps view is that if someone is not losing, he is not winning.
Trump's world view: It's not the winning, it's the taking apart......
Decent borrowing figures this morning - borrowing £4.8 billion instead of £6 billion might be considered by some a sign of success.
The £1.2 billion "saved" could be spent on roads (or something similar).
Never mind, we'll still be £55-£60 billion in the hole this year and the national debt is up there at £1.78 trillion.
Context - it's all about context. I was harangued by an officer at a county council yesterday who was telling me about his authority's "black hole" and said "deep cuts " were coming. The amount of the "black hole" was barely 1% of the county's budget.
Hole - more like a puddle to be honest.
The ONS said October's better than expected performance was due to strong tax revenue. Overall tax income in October was the strongest since records began.
Bit different to that report in the FT the other day that claimed tax revenues were going to be shown to be well down.
Not really, the FT report was about the period after we leave the EU.
I'm starting to understand how Trump spent so little to win the Presidency. Note that nowhere in this tweet does he say he wants Farage as ambassador. If he did, he could have done so in one sentence. Instead, we have 'Many people [but not necessarily me] would like to see Farage' coupled with Trump's own ego-stroking comment about a political ally that 'He would do a great job'. All it took was one completely contentless tweet- so contentless that Trump wouldn't even have to back down from it- and he's dominating the news cycles again, thanks to people speculating about the effects of a policy he didn't even announce.
The question that journalists and commentators should really be asking is whether Trump is trying to use this tweet to overshadow another less beneficial story that's just hit the news, or perhaps to prevent the news cycle dissecting an earlier story that has served its purpose. No wonder he showed so much contempt for them in the face-to-face meeting, if he can play them this easily.
That's correct. However, it won't work forever.
How far will he push it all before even the GOP moves for impeachment? I give it two, maybe three years, as the issues with his business, family and POTUS all become hopelessly entangled. It seems he plans to use the office to further his business deals - yesterday he was lobbying a group of, iirc, Argentinians for a building permit.
We're in for a loooooooong eight years.
So he used a call to the Argentine president to ask for a building permit... Didn't even bother to use a go between or a back channel.
UKIP being investigated by electoral commission over EU funds and the use thereof
I should have thought that would be called Rotten Old News, as this was reported days ago. Wake up SquareRoot!
It was announced previously that the EU parliament was looking into UKIP misuse of funds. This is the doughty, British* Electoral Commission now looking into it.
*Warning, may metamorphose into enemies of the people at short notice.
On topic, Her Majesty's Most Excellent Ambassador and Plenipotentiary to the United States of America is the top post of the Diplomatic Service, it usually requires years of experience in more junior Ambassadorships.
I'd be quite happy for Nigel Farage start with being Ambassador to Saudi Arabia or Ambassador to the Islamic State, then maybe in two or three years review his credentials to become our man in Washington.
Comments
I nominate you for understatement of the year.
Trump is a lose cannon who is playing his own game and wants to control the pieces on the board. He knows that the British establishment didn't want him to win so will seek to diminish its influence on USA-UK relations.
We all know that's the rough situation.
As I have to do some work now and don't wish to have a petty argument I'll wish you a good day.
Perhaps that Farage is a lightweight who's only good for sucking up to Trump. He'd never have said anything similar about Le Pen for example. It makes a mockery of the magazine cover with Trump, Putin and Farage when the latter is just the court eunuch.
The question that journalists and commentators should really be asking is whether Trump is trying to use this tweet to overshadow another less beneficial story that's just hit the news, or perhaps to prevent the news cycle dissecting an earlier story that has served its purpose. No wonder he showed so much contempt for them in the face-to-face meeting, if he can play them this easily.
It's a strange form of voter fraud that sees Trump and Senator Burr winning, and Mcrory losing.
But as we saw with the referendum, trade plays second fiddle to other, more tenuous factors such as sovereignty.
The EU's behaviour since the referendum has been stupid: they don't appear to be asking themselves *why* we voted the way we did: it's our fault and they're blamesless. If the EU breaks up it will not be due to Brexit: it will be due to the fact they're not listening to some genuine concerns.
In that, many Brexiters on here were right and I was wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico
Farage as US ambassador would just be a useful idiot as far as the yanks are concerned. He is nothing more than a temporary political ally for Trump. That's it. Why would we suspend all diplomatic norms in pursuit of a ceremonial alliance with a US president that is detested by a large majority of the UK population, which would alienate us from the Germany and the rest of the EU, who we need to do a deal with on Brexit? Putting a comic book protest figure who has no experience in diplomacy in probably the most important position in the diplomatic service? It would only work in the interests of one party, which is the US. Farage would be way out of his depth. We will always have interests to protect that are independent of the US.
I'm not against some kind of role for Farage, particularly if he actually has to make decisions and be held to account. But this is the wrong role. You should know when you are being played.
I'm bloody glad, all things considered, that Theresa May is PM, and not Andrea Leadsom.
Now that a liberal justice has been elected to the court tippinbthe balance the legislature is talking about adding 2 judges that will be picked by the outgoing governor.
This is tin pot third world country stuff. This is brother of the candidate deciding who wins the election stuff.
https://www.twitter.com/Atrios/status/800892985357385729
Do the democrats not try things like closing rural polling stations?
Will be the highest turnout since 1968.
I do like the banana argument, though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfucpGCm5hY
Just look at all the commenters (professional and amateur, of course) running to opine about international diplomacy on the basis of 140 characters and no actual content. This is right up there with the time he leaked his own tapes to the Washington Post, or when he tricked CNN into airing 20 minutes of veteran's endorsements because they thought he was going to talk about birtherism.
1. Obama '08
2. Obama '12
3. Clinton '16
4. Trump '16
5. Bush '04.
Interestingly, ideas may have replaced genetics in altering the species, the problem being some ideas are bloody awful (one need only look at what's happening in the Middle East to see that).
It's beyond saving.
And if we ever get Musk's dream of a million-strong colony on Mars, we might see two differently evolving races from Homo Sapiens.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/21/question-will-reveal-whether-donald-trump-will-terrible-president/
Will Trump listen to advice or end up at war with Iran?
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/humans-are-still-evolving-and-we-can-watch-it-happen
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/01/who-gerrymanders-more-democrats-or-republicans
It could be though that certain states are dodgy and whoever is in charge there is going to gerrymander... It just happens that the republicans are in charge at present.
Mr. Jessop, indeed, sub-species (at least) could emerge if/when we colonise other celestial bodies.
Designing people is... disturbing. A storyline not yet developed (too much else to do) I had for a sci-fi focused on the co-morbidity rate of high intelligence with psychological disorders.
Imagine if we could bump up the average IQ to what today would be considered 150. Great. Except that would probably have the impact of massively increasing the number of psychopaths too (if we assume IQ actually measures intelligence).
Fiddling with genetics is fraught with danger.
All right kids, it is now my job to teach you the theory of evolution.
Oh boy! Now I, for one, think evolution is a bunch of BULLCRAP.
But I've been told I have to teach it anyway.
It was thought up by Charles Darwin and it goes something like this: In the beginning we were all fish.
Okay? Swimming around in the water.
And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live.
So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands and it had buttsex with a squirrel or something and made this retard frog squirrel, and then that had a retard baby which was a monkey fish-frog
And then this monkey fish-frog had buttsex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey and that made you! So there you go! You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys havin' buttsex with a fish-squirrel! Congratulations!
You don't often get teaching as good as this in UK schools!
Four years ?
Ah yes, Revelations.
Lowest winning Sub 50%ers:
1) Clinton 43.0% '92
2) Nixon 43.4% '68
3) Trump ~ 46.55% '16
Others: JFK '60, Bush '00.
All first term & 'following the other party' victories.
All improved their position in the 2nd term election (If we view Johnson as effectively completing JFK's 2nd term)
Does Middlesbrough deserve its unenviable reputation?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-37909182
Note how to mix a vodka and coke without a glass...
http://order-order.com/2016/11/22/owen-smith-will-vote-will-people/
That row over painted doors was debunked....so I see the BBC have cleverly reworded it to say they were "identifiable", which is still untrue.
UKIP being investigated by electoral commission over EU funds and the use thereof
Decent borrowing figures this morning - borrowing £4.8 billion instead of £6 billion might be considered by some a sign of success.
The £1.2 billion "saved" could be spent on roads (or something similar).
Never mind, we'll still be £55-£60 billion in the hole this year and the national debt is up there at £1.78 trillion.
Context - it's all about context. I was harangued by an officer at a county council yesterday who was telling me about his authority's "black hole" and said "deep cuts " were coming. The amount of the "black hole" was barely 1% of the county's budget.
Hole - more like a puddle to be honest.
Another interesting, if debatable, Binkov's Battlegrounds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3VqF2dXje0
TSE might like an earlier video, France versus UK.
Cameron a long way behind Major and Thatcher even though he had alot more people to work with in 2015 !
BBC:
'Despite the monthly improvement, on Wednesday the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, is expected to announce an extra £100bn of public borrowing for the next five years, compared with what was planned in March, largely because the economy is expected to grow less quickly than was thought.'
Maybe May gets it already.
News just in, we're still in the EU.
The hypocrisy is genuinely impressive.
*Warning, may metamorphose into enemies of the people at short notice.
I'd be quite happy for Nigel Farage start with being Ambassador to Saudi Arabia or Ambassador to the Islamic State, then maybe in two or three years review his credentials to become our man in Washington.